The Journal of Informal Patriarchy and Consent

A draft. Wherein most references to Jura Books have been redacted in the interests of honesty and fairness to all.

By Mr Rocks and Anna Aniston.

By No means finished, but offered by way of small explanation as to the frustration I have previously expressed. A note to the curious: this will be finished and made available.

Volume 1: Theory

 The price of my solidarity with you is the cessation of your privilege over me

Patriarchy doesn’t exist simply because it is powerful, defending itself with brute force. Sometimes it does this. Much more often, patriarchy exists because it slinks around unnamed, unchallenged, and powerful because of its secretive methods of undermining diversity and solidarity. This document is about the mercurial and impenetrable face of informal patriarchy.

Why write this down?

I want to have a voice, and I want no longer to be silenced. I also would like to move on with my life and not be subject to constantly asking myself whether I was ‘correct’ or ‘ok’. I want to say my piece and forget about it. Anyone who cares can read what I have written and decide for themselves.

I was asked not to tell anyone about what happened at Jura. I was asked not to ‘try to destroy’ the project. In my opinion, if the project is self-destructive, then other prospective members and supporters have some right to that information. It is fundamental to anarchy (as far as I care) to organise transparently. For decades, Jura was deliberately run into the ground, and it was not destroyed. Weeks after I left, all the changes I had made were undone and those that were not had my memory scrubbed clean from them.   

Part 1: The Theory and Practice of Informal Patriarchy

Chapter 1: How to cement the informal patriarchy 

1. Invisibility

Informality

It is very important that the patriarchy be maintained informally. A formal patriarchal system can’t be maintained in an anarchist collective without a political agreement to that effect. Of course - it is possible, but much more difficult. A formal patriarchy requires reasonable arguments and it needs to be backed up by controlling resources and strengths.

 

An Illusion of Powerlessness

As we all know, a paper tiger can’t bite. So its pretty important that conflict be avoided to maintain an illusion of power. Or rather, of powerlessness.

 

The informal patriarchy bases itself on an illusion of powerlessness. To divest oneself of privilege (the goal of every anarchist man), one must defer decision-making, refuse power and powerful tasks. Instead, the informal patriarch makes "suggestions" at meetings. He holds the history, and refers not to written documents (tools of abtract authority) but to the softer-edged memory. He performs duties "as directed by the collective", but when asked to share that knowledge, is found to be too weak to appropriately pass on the knowledge. The informal patriarch cannot use email, the internet or other organising tools we take for granted. He is so helpless, he must be assisted in many tasks.

 

His weakness is his strength because he commands assistance and deflects the scrutiny that any other collective member would receive. By stating inferiority, he avoids the challenge to create equality and in effect, rises above.

 

Avoiding conflict

A great thing about avoiding conflict is that you can pass it off as pacifism. Conflict, apart from being an integral part of human relationships, is also used as a synonym for fighting. Any kind of conflict threatens informal patriarchy. Firstly, the informal patriarch may be exposed if he becomes angry and violent. He may be exposed if his ideas or basis of reasoning is challenged and he accidentally admits sexist reasoning.

 

Personalising / depoliticising disagreement

The personal is political. The informal patriarch takes the political personally. He personalises his denouncement of particular women, targeting them for harrassment and humiliation under a guise of political disagreement. Under the mantle of political discussion, he will single them out as examples.

 

Politics is personalised when the woman becomes disentitled to support (or cessation of bullying) because of her behaviour. Her paranoia, her difficulties in ‘getting along’, her difficulties in ‘understanding how things work’. A this point, the issue of sexism has slipped comfortably from targeting of a woman because of her gender into a ‘personal misunderstanding’ in which the entire collective is complicit in perpetuating. 

 

Divide and Conquer

Duh. Its simple. Single out one at a time, while keeping a good relationship with everybody else. Then frustrate the target until it gives up seizing power, or leaves.

 

The double-standard is a great tool to achieve this. The target is considered fully responsible for disagreements, interpersonal "disharmony", while "The Collective" is responsible for the target’s achievements, successfully depriving the former of it’s merits. If the target is considered crazy, that constitutes is a threat to the collective’s well being, and the target is to be blamed for it. The patriarch and its drones (see further), in the other hand, are not accountable for their own actions. They’re treated condescendingly, as people to be protected because they’re weak, old, lonely, crazy or whatever, and who have no control over their disability.


 

2. Defusing meetings

The informal patriarch should have unshakable democratic values. Hence, he will refuse any power (and blame) which might be directed to him. He will instead uphold that "the collective", through the collective meetings, will be the sole decision-making body. But for him to keep his own grip on power, the collective meetings cannot work. They should be just a formal, powerless farce.


Drones

One of the reasons why it is so difficult to detect an informal patriarch is because he can be hidden behind a layer of drones. They are often, although not necessarily so, more likely to look patriarchal. Drones will hamper the collective when it tries to make formal decisions, leaving space for the informal patriarch to continue controlling key tasks and informal decision-making. Similarly to the patriarch, drones might bog meetings by looking:

i) socially unskilled, crazy, or overcareful. In this way they might make plausible criticisms over a given motion, not ever being satisfied with it, while arguing for the need to reach consensus (we will talk more about consensus later).
ii) outright patriarchal. Even today, many ‘anarchist’ collectives find ideas like "feminism equals nationalism" or "we are interested in the class struggle; women’s issues are not class issues" acceptable, and consider those as being just another viewpoint. That implicitly means "it’s OK to be sexist or anti-feminist, because we can’t judge other people’s opinions. As anarchists we must accept variety". Bleargh.
iii) bullies. While everybody else abides to basic rules of politeness, order of speaking, volume of speaking, time use, kindness and a basic assumption that a person with a clashing viewpoint still has good faith, bullies will be free to disregard all of that, and rule. In an informal patriarchy, the participants will accept unacceptable behavior as a "right", refuse to fight back (fighting is unacceptable for oneself, even if the bully is attacking), and will not defend the target of the bully (everyone has the right to speak its own mind, or act according to it).

While the drone creates confusion and frustrate the meetings, the informal patriarch will stay quiet. The patriarch will only speak in case the drone is challenged, and at this time he will eagerly call everyone to cool off. In this way, he successfully calls off or postpones the discussion, and hence the decision; he preserves the drone and his right to bully; and frustrates the attempt to challenge him. All in the name of peacekeeping, which of course will not be understood as him being supportive to the bully. In other words, peace is war of the patriarch on others.

Another way to protect the drone is to be condescending about it. The drone is not a bad person (there are no bad people); he is unskilled, ignorant, and will get better if people are more accepting of him. That is, everybody is asked to be even more passive about the whole deal. In other words, ignorance is strenght for the patriarch.

Finally, the patriarch can assume the drone stance. He himself can appear unskilled, and he himself can be the one to be accepted with his disabilities. Once another member of the collective has been well trained in the informal patriarchy morals and values, this member will uphold it, and protect the patriarch himself from being challenged.

Deflecting blame to drones

Drones make perfect scapegoats. They are a major hassle; their disorganising work is visible; though they could only have power if they are safe from challenge. As the patriarch can prevent them from being challenged through very subtle and ‘fair’ tactics as preventing fight escalation, they help patriarchs to stay invisible. A patriarch will deny that drones are ‘crazy’, ‘bullies’ or such, preventing drones from being disempowered. But instead of being exposed as supporting a bully, the patriarch’s opinions will be instead regarded as naiveté, a "basic optimism in humanity", or even "being fair to all contending parts" which are acceptable viewpoints.


Consensus: A Theatre of Good Faith

The main key to avoid decisions to be made is to avoid discussions to finish. That can be safely be disguised as an effort at reaching consensus. Voting is of course a threat, because it means a decision will be made. Patriarchs will be unclear about their own opinion on everything, including voting; drones will be outright against voting and praising of consensus. Of course, consensus won’t be reached except when its THEIR decision that is being adopted. Other members might let them do that, for they assume the patriarchs do that in good faith.

 

Confusing definitions

Definitions will expand and contract according to the need of the moment. Example: when attacking, "feminism" could mean separatism, which is something most won’t support. Unspoken, assumed definitions are harder to spot, but ring bells in the listener’s patriarchally conditioned ears, whom will agree with assumptions which, if spoken, would sound clearly untenable. In another situation, when speaking of one’s own support of "feminism", that word can mean stuff like "water birth", "beink kind to women", "treating women equally" (equally having no right or entitlement to support as a presently marginalised group) or even upholding the right of women to organise separately as a special interest group (as long as it does not claim for its share of power in the main collective).


 

Being shifty

You cannot hold an informal patriarch against the wall with reasoning. The patriarch will slide away, without ever engaging. He will either become defensive, personalising the challenge ("is there a problem between me and you?") or burying the whole deal in an avalanche of useless remarks which will be tangential to the issue at hand. He might also allude to the misty past, which you won’t be able to check conclusively.


Benevolence

Refusing to judge can easily be confused with appearing to forgive.

3. Task hierarchy


 

[The patriarch is so busy, and has always been, handling the power-giving tasks (mail, book ordering, finances, contacts and outreach), that he has no time to clean up or do the more second-rate ones (cleaning up, keeping records, task-sharing)]


 


4. Validation

The Validating cunt

The overarching past

Past editing


The invisible validating community & supporters

 

Chapter 2: Consent and Complicity

Informal patriarchy cannot exist without consent.

 

The consent of a few key people is required.

 

1. Layers of Spectacular Democracy

Meetings, discussion lists,


Ignorance is consent

New people assume good will of the present members and their views on "the past". When they figure out what is happening, they leave, and new people who ignore "the past" come to replace them. Those new members, basing themselves on those assumptions of good will, will be unwilling to listen to warnings or criticisms that could undermine the "harmony" within the collective.

The fragile [inexistent] community

The community can never be defined as the current members of the project because this would have the effect of vesting authority in the collective. Instead, the community to be served, appeased and represented must be defined as something outside the collective. Whether it includes the intentions of the past collective members, potential collective members, fringe members, partners of current collective members or financial supporters, there is always a higher authority which constrains the collective to conservatism and watering-down of politics.

On the other hand, this loosely defined community, with little or no real bonds with either the collective or its goals, is to be defended at any cost against real or imagined threats to its survival. Any departure from conservatism and, more importantly, any criticism about current practices, threatens to frighten off those "potential" supporters / draftees. In a curious inversion of reality, frustrating and even loosing dissenting collective members is an affordable price payed to keep that imaginary wider community "together". Members who assume that the so often referred to community exists, will understandably try to play safe, not shaking this fragile boat and opposing those who attempt this.

The enormous job to be done [by stoics and martyrs]

The enthusiasm coming from joining an important project will at first blind new members from the fact that their work is being alienated. At first they will righteously be willing to listen to older members and follow their advice, in order to gain experience and become independent workers. But at some point the pointlessness of the work starts to become apparent, as change is being actively (but not overtly) defused and energy is channeled to useless targets. Added to it comes loneliness, as community building is also suppressed. The self-motivated militant will still keep going though, as the carrot looks farther and farther away, for her love for the cause is far too ingrained. Instead of shifting the focus of her work, the good worker will instead, as the burden becomes heavier, have less energy to question the assumptions in place. She will instead look for new draftees as a way to share the burden. Moreover, she will think the suffering comes from fighting alone against the whole capitalist system, even though most of that burden is being laid by her patriarchal peers, which she isn’t able to identify.

If I can’t dance, then it’s not my revolution [yet]
Emma Goldman is famous for rebuking post-revolutionary Russia with the phrase "If I can’t dance, its not my revolution". She skilfully brings all the issues of the right of pleasure, the right of ownership, self-determination which the Russian people were missing because they were miserable in the service of past revolutionary heroes and future inheritors. Emma tells us that a revolution which doesn’t serve the needs of those people here and now is not actually a revolution of those people. It is something altogether more sinister.

At the time she made this comment, Emma was vilified by communists worldwide for undermining the world communist movement. Sure, it may have been imperfect, but it was the best we had, so why did she criticise it? The very fact that Russia claimed to be revolutionary called for its motives to be interrogated. But its new status as an embryonic new society imbued it with a false authority, and it rose above suspicion by all who wanted a similar chance for change. Emma cut through the crap and demanded her right as an equal to her own opinion.

The patriarch will bring similar pressure to bear on anyone who criticises the current state of affairs. "Its the best we can do", "we are
Understandably, no-one should have to take criticism from someone who can’t contribute to improving matters. But to refuse to take honest criticism from someone who actively contributes and patiently waits is domination.

Part 2: A Case Study.

(How informal patriarchy works in a real setting)


 

Part 3: Getting rid of undesirable (good) people

Frustration
(everything must be redone)

Loneliness
(shifts, no leisure/rest time, renouncement of community)

Bogging down projects

Spectacular key tasks

(the bits and pieces)

Even more frustration
(no reward for good job done, no acknowledgement)

Outright sabotage
(make things blow in their hands)

Being understanding and condescending
(poor ‘lil darling)

Being attacked by insane/crazy/unstable loonies
(I don’t support your destructive comments)


Part 4: Conditions of Solidarity

We all believe in solidarity with others, right?

When it comes to actually extending support to a collective member, then conditioning and conditions become apparent.

To do:

  • Insert examples in sections
  • The consenting party viewpoint
  • Women should be nice (otherwise they’re crazy), men can be assholes (this is just a valid political viewpoint)